Plaintiff prevailed on a mandate petition challenging his one-year suspension from UC Davis for violating its policies against sexual harassment and assault. The trial court found that the university lacked evidence of sufficiently serious misconduct to support the one-year suspension. This decision holds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in holding that plaintiff was not entitled to a fee award under CCP 1021.5 because the trial court’s substantive decision did not confer a substantial benefit on the public or a sufficiently large portion of it. It established no new legal principles of general application but just found evidence lacking in the plaintiff’s own case.